| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>, pghackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql y2k bug? |
| Date: | 2000-01-02 02:06:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20762.946778782@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I am attaching a diff to fix the problem. We were reporting only a
> 2-digit year, and tm_year reports years since 1900, so it was reporting
> 100 for year 2000. The field was %02d, but the number was three digits
> so it printed all three.
If you are going to go to 4-digit years in timestamps, I think you also
need to increase the TIMESTAMP_SIZE constant used by elog.c when
ELOG_TIMESTAMPS is set.
An alternative solution is to print time->tm_year % 100.
Either of these solutions might break existing programs that analyze
logfiles, if any there be...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-02 02:10:32 | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql y2k bug? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-02 01:53:47 | Is DATEDEBUG useful |